Thanks to Jeanne Garbarino, Director of Science Outreach at the Rockefeller University, I have now added to my reading list a new blogsite: The Incubator, hosted by the Rockefeller. It is going to be a home to graduate student and postdoc blogging, and I am looking forward to reading interesting posts in there.

I started off with an essay by Laura Seeholzer on a favorite topic of mine, science communication (a field in which I’d love to work more actively some day…). It begins with a hilarious story about miscommunication because of homophonic terms with vastly different meanings. I don’t want to spoil the surprise; go read the original post. I laughed out loud, causing some consternation in my lab!

I would like to commend Laura for this overall enjoyable and thought-provoking post. The particular problem of science communication that she has highlighted is an important problem which needs a solution post-haste: the problem of jargon in scientific communication, which potentially makes science in general incomprehensible to the lay public, leading to dismal state of affairs in the public understanding of scientific facts.

[I left a comment after Laura’s post, and it is in moderation currently. But since the issue is very interesting to me, I decided to write it down in a blog post of my own, too.]

Let me start by quoting a part of Laura’s post.

Until recently I firmly believed that this problem lay with the public and could be fixed by changing our education system. They lacked “scientific literacy.”

My feelings were supported by a Pew research survey of American adults:

46% thought antibiotics kill viruses (They only kill bacteria)

54% did not know electrons were smaller than atoms (2,000-450,000 times smaller)

48% did not know how stem cells differed from normal cells (stem cells can develop into many types of cell)

However, better education doesn’t fully address the problem: even if we perfectly teach all of modern science in high school, in 20 years, a students’ knowledge becomes outdated. Once this occurs, it becomes difficult to understand cutting-edge research. If you do not understand it, you probably will not find it interesting. The information then floats away and the cycle repeats.

I agree with the general thesis, although she seems not to consider the idea that science education need not stop at school, or need not be compartmentalized in any way at all. It can exist in a continuum. In any case, then she writes: I am now convinced scientists are causing the gap by the way we communicate.

This is where I’d beg to differ with Laura. In this, she seems to have imbibed a great deal of inspiration from a statement of Alan Alda that she has quoted, and I find that statement problematic. Let me explain.

As Alda described, “scientists suffer from the curse of knowledge: we assume ‘the public’ knows more than they do so we communicate in our own language, not theirs.” Scientists have a tendency to fall back on jargon, which alienates the public and excludes them from the conversation. Journalists try to translate our jibberish (sic) but then we skewer them for “getting it wrong.”

For what it’s worth, in my opinion this is a rather uncharitable and, to some extent, incorrect representation of science communication. First, this dichotomy that he creates, between ‘us’ and the ‘public’, is false – because there is no monolithic ‘us’. Laura mentioned optogenetics as an example in her post. I am a working immunologist and infectious disease researcher, but if one starts throwing optogenetics-specific jargon at me, I would duck and take cover as the strange incantations fly over my head. The responsibility for clear and precise communication of scientific observations is a universal requirement.

However, the characterization that “Scientists have a tendency to fall back on jargon” is somewhat unfair. Technical jargon is, more often than not, a useful tool to achieve clarity and precision in the communication of scientific data. The contention that jargon “alienates the public and excludes them from the conversation” is rather unidimensional and unfair, too, in that it casts an image of ‘public’ as a monolithic, uncomprehending blob of “I-don’t-get-it” (Think Neo in The Matrix). There is a great need for nuanced understanding in this area.

Three things need to happen in this regard:

Through science education (at school and continuing), there must be an effort to elevate the lay public’s comfort level with jargon – with the understanding that technical terms often offer clarity and precision to a concept.

Scientists must be able to (and they need to taught how to, if necessary) choose their intended audience better. The sole goal needs to be better communication and better understanding. They need to eschew jargon wherever non-technical words may suffice, but must not baulk at using them where the concept demands it.

Whenever jargon is used, scientists must be at pains to explain the concept in lay terms alongwith; this can be facilitated by the provision of resources, such as a glossary, which an interested member of the lay public can use to look up technical terms and their meanings.

The view that “Journalists try to translate our jibberish but then we skewer them for getting it wrong” is not wholly correct, either. The translation of gibberish and getting it right need not be mutually exclusive, and there are plenty of amazing, brilliant and fascinating science journalists to prove that point. The names (in no particular order) that jump to mind easily are Carl Zimmer, Ed Yong, Maryn Mackenna, Debbie Blum, and others, not to mention working scientists who have taken up blogging, such as GrrlScientist, Emily Willingham, Athene Donald, PZ Myers, Dean Burnett, and so forth.

What scientists (including me) have had a problem with, from time to time, is lazy and incompetent reporting which grossly misrepresents the outcomes of a study or scientific observations. Once again, clarity and precision are very important. The viewpoints on the intersection of science and journalism differ, though. For example, Ananyo Bhattacharya, Chief Online Editor at Nature, one who has been on both sides of the debate, has very specific ideas about how science journalism should work, and he believes in giving the journalist a lot of leeway. Scientists often have a different point of view.

However, I do think that Laura has hit the nail right on the head when she writes:

But we are all busy people, and it makes sense why so few people do this- promotions and interviews depend on how well you communicate your research to your peers, not the public. While funding agencies are starting to incentivize outreach, it is a personal passion to accelerate this movement.

It is not that scientists necessarily fall back upon jargon for communication, but they seldom have the time – after taking care of their academic obligations (read: ‘mad rush to secure funding’) – to engage in explanatory activities for the benefit of the lay public. Incentivizing the outreach, therefore, is a GREAT idea – although it seems to be still at a nascent stage, and must be encouraged.

7 Comments

Taking the time for communicating the message is critical. The more scientists participate in the process of sharing the information (i.e., blogs, Twitter, webinars, seminars, etc.) the more they realize less jargon has to be used, leading to a higher retention of the core message.

As a public information officer in the government sector (and previously an educator in the non-profit sector) I frequently come across scientists that are not willing to take the extra step to engage myself, let alone the public or reporters. Perhaps, this lack of taking the next step is what leads to “lazy and incompetent reporting”. It is simply not enough to get up in front of an audience (i.e., lecture) and speak. There needs to be collaboration in the process for developing materials, as well as solid and thoughtful follow-up after lectures. Here is a post I wrote on the subject “Playing well with others? Dissecting the tension between the scientist-educator community” http://beachchairscientist.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/playing-well-with-others-dissecting-the-tension-between-the-scientist-educator-community/

Thank you for your comment, Ann. I agree that taking the time to communicate the message is critical. However, as a scientist, I am not convinced that I share your emphasis on using less jargon for the retention of the core message. In fact, it should be clear from my post that I don’t view jargon with as much suspicion as you possibly do – but I do feel, as I have indicated, that jargon needs to be appropriately deciphered for the message to leave an impression. Let me restate that in a different way: I don’t think “jargon to no jargon” is helpful as much as “jargon AND explanation” is.

As far as your experience of “scientists that are not willing to take the extra step to engage” others is concerned, it is a valid observation – but the extenuating circumstances must be mentioned. What I put rather mildly as ‘academic duties’ in my post actually translates to a rather insane rush to procure funding, a factor that often determines important career turns for a scientist, including the decision whether to continue running a lab or not.

You have talked about the tension between scientists and educators. What you haven’t highlighted is the fact that the said tension is almost nothing compared to the internal tension many scientists face between their scientist roles and educator duties. Those who have dedicated their career to scientific investigations often decide in favor the former than the latter – for which I cannot really, in good conscience, blame them.

I really enjoyed reading your post! You made some great suggestions on how science communication between scientists and the public can be improved. I also agree that technical jargon can be helpful and often necessary in such communication. But like you said, these terms should be followed by a explanation (or an example or two!). I believe that replacing scientific terms can sometimes change the meaning.of an explanation, and that would defeat the purpose of clear communication!

As someone who works a lot with trainees and professional scientists who are interested in improving their writing, I think it is to everyone’s benefit—including and especially theirs—if they can speak about what they do with as little jargon as possible. I’ve worked with trainees who are highly proficient in jargon and yet do not actually seem to know what they’re talking about.

I disagree with the idea that people would better be able to understand the jargon if science education were better in this country. Even some of the most well-educated scientists around are not going to be able to understand jargon in a field that is not theirs. Where I work, our publications go out to many scientists who don’t work in our field and who, although very smart, would not understand or engage in our articles if I used terms like “birth cohort effect,” “obesogenic environment,” “environmental exposures.”

I think the mark of an excellent education is not whether someone knows all of the technical terms but whether one can think and speak beyond them. I also believe from experience that jargon is more often than not used when people are being intellectually lazy.

In response to this:

It is not that scientists necessarily fall back upon jargon for communication, but they seldom have the time – after taking care of their academic obligations (read: ‘mad rush to secure funding’) – to engage in explanatory activities for the benefit of the lay public. Incentivizing the outreach, therefore, is a GREAT idea – although it seems to be still at a nascent stage, and must be encouraged.

I agree and am sympathetic to scientists’ lack of time. Journalists are in the same bind. They want to have more time to learn about science, but they are facing deadline pressures, have to cover many different areas of research, and sources with varying degrees of communication skills. Journalists also have a responsibility to their readers to scrutinize and clarify scientific jargon just as they would business jargon, I.e. “corporate-speak,” e.g. “synergies,” “global platform,” “leverage.”

I do think that practically speaking we have to acknowledge that scientists and journalists have different aims and different occupations. In the science/communication debate, I often find that some people want journalists to be scientists or scientists to be journalists. But you are right, scientists do not have the time to engage in explanatory activities and journalists do not often have the time to learn technical terms, although it is great thing when we can make the time, which is why scientists do communication training and why journalists go to science journalism conferences.

Anyway I think we mostly agree, but I had to write because I have very strong opinions on jargon, and definitely believe the less we have of it in the public domain the better. I don’t of course dispute that it is useful among academics in the same field and in academic journals, but I think it’s rarely necessary in public communications.

Elaine, thank you for taking the time to jot down your thoughts on this. This is an important discussion and your inputs are most welcome – even if I may not agree with some of them. Please allow me to reply to your points.

I think it is to everyone’s benefit – including and especially theirs – if they can speak about what they do with as little jargon as possible.

As I have indicated to Ann above, I don’t disagree with this sentiment – but cannot accept it as a blanket statement without qualification. Jargon is often helpful; jargon allows for precision in a statement, as well as brevity in expressing a complex concept. Take, for example, “obesogenic environment”; I don’t work with obesity or metabolism, or even any kind of dysmorphic syndrome, but the term concisely tells me to expect a discussion about a set of conditions which may predispose a person towards obesity. I hope you understand where I’m coming from – even if you disagree.

I’ve worked with trainees who are highly proficient in jargon and yet do not actually seem to know what they’re talking about.

My commiserations. There are incompetent poseurs in every field, even in Journalism, and it is perhaps your misfortune to have encountered some of them. I’d expect that these are the exceptions, rather than the rule.

I disagree with the idea that people would better be able to understand the jargon if science education were better in this country.

Ah. You misunderstood me. What I wrote was (I quote) – “Through science education (at school and continuing), there must be an effort to elevate the lay public’s comfort level with jargon…” – not exactly the same as what was, in your opinion, implied. You have talked about (in the next sentence in your comment) how encountering jargon may lead to automatic rejection or withdrawal, right? It need to be; this is what can be remedied by improving science education – the understanding amongst folks, lay public and scientists alike, that sometimes jargons are necessary to be used and oftentimes serve the useful purposes of brevity and precision; that it is admirable to make an attempt to understand jargon when one encounters it.

Of course, as I have said in my post, this understanding cannot develop unless there are resources made available to people for that very purpose. I mentioned a glossary, remember? So while many (including scientists) may not understand immediately if you use terms like “birth cohort effect”, and “environmental exposures”, a line or two of explanation accompanying each term can go a L-O-N-G way. Would you agree to that?

On the other hand, if you are, in effect, attempting to dumb down the language of science by fanning the fires of ‘jargonophobia’, what exactly is your lowest common denominator that you expect to serve – if I may ask?

I agree and am sympathetic to scientists’ lack of time. Journalists are in the same bind. They want to have more time to learn about science, but they are facing deadline pressures, have to cover many different areas of research, and sources with varying degrees of communication skills.

With no disrespect meant towards the fine job many journalists do, I think you’re being naive if you draw an equivalence between the scientists and the journalists. The primary duty of a scientist is hypothesis generation, empirical investigation, observation and analysis. Not every scientist is a good communicator, or has the ability or inclination to try to engage in outreach. (This is, of course, not to excuse any perceived inability to think and speak beyond jargon, as you said, but communication skills vary.) The primary duty of a journalist, on the other hand, IS communication. Therefore, the very real hardships that journalists face (that you listed) are a part and parcel of their trade, and shouldn’t be used as excuse for sloppy, slovenly work – should they?

And I think – reading what you wrote in the next paragraph of your response – you do understand and appreciate this important distinction quite well. So, I, too, think that we mostly agree on the substance, if not the means, of having scientific observations communicated successfully to people. I must admit that I’ve been spoiled rotten by the EXCELLENT work of many pre-eminent science journalists whom I admire greatly and follow.